A SCHEME for backland housing at Bookham has been thrown out on appeal after a planning inspector said the new homes would be totally out of place with their neighbours.

Wren Homes was unsuccessful in trying to overturn a decision taken by Mole Valley Council not to permit four, four-bedroom detached houses to be built in the back gardens of properties in Leatherhead Road.

After gathering evidence, the inspector, M.A. Chapman, sided with the council after saying that the character of the neighbourhood was stamped by detached properties standing in large, mature plots.

The proposal would have included subdividing gardens, demolishing part of one house and its detached garage, and modifying the access.

In his report, the inspector said the development would result in a row of four almost uniform houses on small plots with limited separation. The gardens would be small and much of the land would be hard surfaced.

“These features would be in direct contrast to the surrounding area which is characterised by a wide variety of designs in a spacious open setting with extensive planting,” his report added.

“The number, form and size of the dwellings would be out of keeping with their surroundings. They would be crammed into the site appearing as an over development of a mature backland garden.”

Turning to other issues, the inspector said he was concerned about a protected copper beech tree that would be likely to suffer damage as a result of the development. The developers also intended axing a willow and a horse chestnut that Mr Chapman said would be a loss to the character of the area.

The proposal would appear “highly prominent” from neighbouring homes and overlook them. The access would increase traffic “and general activity” and create more noise and disturbance which would be unreasonable, he believed.

The inspector said his attention had been drawn to another proposed backland development in the vicinity. But he felt there were “significant differences” between that and the scheme he was reviewing over layout, ground levels and overlooking.

In any event, he did not consider any other development that had been granted planning permission necessarily justified constructing another “contrary to policies and guidance”.